I Am an Un-American

I am an Un-American. I live in America. I am a citizen; I was born here. But I'm not a real American.

My value structure and ideas of progress make me an un-American. My willingness to challenge the status quo and demand accountability make me an un-American. My despair of the dirty deeds done, supposedly on my behalf, but without my consent and against my will, make me an un-American. Voicing that despair makes me an un-American.

Desiring change from a system that has done nothing but fail what was once a great country, makes me an un-American. Wanting to restore greatness to a country that used to be the envy of the world makes me an un-American.

Believing that no person is of more importance in the eyes of the government, as outlined in our Declaration of Independence, makes me an un-American. Thinking that a democracy, as outlined by our Founding Fathers, was established to work and benefit the greatest good, not the richest few, makes me an un-American. 

Respecting intelligence and the hard work of both physical and mental laborers makes me an un-American. Not ostracizing those smarter than I am as elitist and snobbish makes me an un-American.

Growing up outside of the south or midwest makes me an un-American. Living in New York City makes me an un-American. 

Using my free time to read, write and learn the truths about the things I don't understand, rather than watching prime-time sitcoms, makes me an un-American.

Being able to look beyond the color of one's skin, as well as the faith a person practices (or doesn't practice) and seeing the obvious credentials that qualify this person, makes me an un-American. Not being duped into believing the disingenuous fear-mongering preached from a pulpit, makes me an un-American.

Being different makes me an un-American.

If these are the things that determine whether someone is a 'real' American, then I'm quite proud to be considered an un-American.

545 People

This is the e-mail, as I received it, that the following post is a response to. I wanted anyone who actually reads my blog (Hi Kate), a chance to better understand what I am discussing. 

"I am not sending this out to anyone to get an argument. These are plain facts, plainly state. Please do not reply to me. If you are willing, send this message to anyone in your address book with an open mind and a desire to do what's best for our country.

Worthy of your time and attention regardless of your Party Affiliation.

545 People

by Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. 

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does. (Actually, lobbyists usually do - note from an angry chimp)

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court Justices 545 humans beings out of the 300 million [sic] are directly legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. 

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the Speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq, it's because they want them in Iraq.

If they do not receive social security, but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are the bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees [sic]..

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Again, I would like to note that:

a) The nine Supreme Court Justices are not elected by anyone. A Supreme Court Justice position is a lifelong position. A potential justice is nominated by the President of the United States and approved by a majority vote in the Senate;

b) For some reason, the aforementioned diatribe does not discuss the role of the Vice President of the United States, who is also an elected official. Using this math, the 545 number should actually be 537 (435 Representatives, 100 Senators, One President, One Vice President). The VP holds the deciding vote in the Senate, and because of Dick Cheney, who knows what other shadowy powers that still have yet to surface, among others.

Response to "545 People"

I wrote this in response to en e-mail received regarding the 545 elected federal officials who hold power in this country and how their poor decisions have gotten us into this mess (435 Representatives in the House, 100 in the Senate, 9 Supreme Court Justices (I'm aware they are not elected), and the President (I realize the VP is also elected. I didn't write the original e-mail)). Basically, the e-mail I received outlines how no one forces politicians to listen to lobbyists or to each other and that they each have the ability to make their own decisions. The e-mail will be reproduced in its entirety in a second post. These are my thoughts.

Not trying to argue, but the unfortunate fact is that government and politics are, in some respects, far more complicated than that. I agree with the general notion. Everyone has a choice to do what is right, and far too many of them don't choose correctly (especially with lobbyists and the like). And those poor choices have gotten this country into the mess we are in now. But much like offices, schools, social groups and everything else that have "games" that are played, often referred to as "office politics" and such, politics is a game in and of itself. This is terrifying, especially considering the last eight years, when the game has been run by people who did not make the right choices). This game can also be beneficial. The problem with there being people running the game is that no one is prefect and every person is inherently fallible. This means that mistakes are made when running the game. And unfortunately, everyone, even those not playing the game, have to pay for those mistakes.

So when someone, who does not make the correct choices, at any level of frequency, is running the game, he or she will wield their power and influence over the game to paint the opposition in a negative light to the voting public. And since we, the voting public, have the power to unseat any elected official that we want (in theory), it is in the best interest of said opponent of the "powerful one(s)" to agree rather than be painted in a negative light to their constituents (see entire Bush Presidency, more specifically:  march to war in Iraq, domestic spying, torture, Guantanamo Bay, Extraordinary Rendition, fear-mongering, etc...). And while we may like to think that "our guy" or "our girl" can be trusted to make the correct decision no matter what, there are very few who actually have the, as the e-mail so eloquently put it, gall, to make that decision in the face of an angry public that does not support that choice (see Vermont's legalization of civil unions).

This brings into the mix the whole ideology of an elected official:  Does the public elect the official to always follow the desires of the majority of the public he or she represents; or does the public elect an official trusting that they have the fortitude and knowledge to make the most correct decision regardless of what the public wants? Neither is necessarily wrong and neither philosophy is inherently wrong.

The problems form this arise when, in the first ideology, the public desires something that is actually not in their best interest (Iraq War). The problems also arise when, in the second ideology, the trusted official makes a decision he or she makes believes to be correct, but is actually not in the best interest of the citizenry (Iraq War).

This of course, opens the door to another inherent problem with representing the interests of only a certain area, rather than the public as a whole. A representative from Texas whose district thrives on oil revenues may not want to pass new environmental protections that will benefit the health of the entire citizenry of the east coast. While competition does typically breed excellence, this sort of competition creates local-interest only politicking. One side claims that the other is trying to destroy it. Texas says the east coast is trying to ruin the domestic oil business by forcing retro-fitting and emission controls that will cut into profits. The east coast is saying that Texas and domestic oil don't care about the health and livelihood of the fellow citizens of this country. Typically this sort of politicking results in a stalemate, a bill that no one ends up happy with, or depending on who controls Congress and the White House, one side getting what they want and the other side getting hung out to dry. This is the political system we have set up. 

As an aside, this is how nations end up withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol to reduce pollution in step with the rest of the industrialized nations because the third-world countries that are developing into industrial powers (and stealing all those American jobs) don't have the same guidelines. Protectionism at its best. On this issue, America is trying to keep the Titanic from sinking by grabbing on to one side of the hull and treading water. There's nothing this country can do to stop or slow globalization (except ruin the entire global financial systems, which is what we just did...U-S-A!!!). But I digress.

I guess what I am saying is that on one hand, I'm all for going back to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and Amendments and really examining hardcore what is relevant today and what needs to be changed. The people in power have managed to send this country spinning down the toilet, and it seems that right now we're so close to being down the drain completely there isn't a whole lot we can do to save ourselves. On the other hand, everything, everything, everything is ALWAYS more complicated than one things it is. Such as life, I suppose. Please share this with people if you would like. Or don't. Whatever.

As a side note, if America really wanted to get those manufacturing jobs back, it has to do two things:

1) Send union officials from this country to these other regions (Latin America, Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, Indonesia, etc...) and have them establish international worker unions so they can organize and demand higher wages and benefits to the point that moving manufacturing bases to foreign countries is no longer cost-effective;

2) Stop using CIA operatives to assassinate local organizers in those regions who are trying to do exactly that, organize unions.

Why would our government, so righteous in trying to keep jobs in America, would be okay with paramilitary units, shady associates of American businesses and CIA operatives (not agents, there is a difference) assassinating union organizers in other countries which, although it may only do a small amount, might bring manufacturing jobs back to America?

1) Businesses that manufacture overseas save ocean-loads of money because they don't have to pay your higher wages and don't have to pay for your expensive benefits. This increases their profit margins, which increases their stock value, which makes a whole lot of rich people richer;

2) Those same businesses and rich people have friends in high places, like in lobbyist offices or as elected officials. And since they also have money, they can make larger donations than you can to campaigns. Without that money, most politicians can't afford to run for office not making excuses, but these are hard decisions for anyone to make);

3) Businesses that save money on manufacturing can charge less money for their products than companies that manufacture in America that pay your higher salaries and expensive benefits. This increased competition drives companies that still have manufacturing bases in America to seek locations outside of America to compete. Businesses that charge less money, but sell more product and have lower expenses, will make higher profits, and their stock value will go up, and a whole lot of rich people will get richer.

But again, I digress.

Pretarded America

Yeah, that's right. I'm calling America, to borrow a term used by the now-seemingly defunct comedian Jim Breuer, Pretarded; that state of stupidity that makes you an absolute moron, but somehow still functional enough to get by on your own. Why has America, or at least part of America, earned this title? Because we have a disturbingly large opposition to taxes, especially when it comes to paying our fair share. 

Of course, it is much easier for me to make this statement as someone who will benefit from the Obama tax plan and not the McCain plan. I happen to fit in that whole under $250,000 a year thing just like the other 95% of America. The thing is, even if I were making $250,000+ a year, I really wouldn't mind paying my fair share. Sure, it might mean I take home a little less bacon every month. And no, I don't like paying taxes. But what we forget is that government is basically a gigantic non-profit organization. Non-profit organizations collect money in whatever way, be it donations or conducting business in their respective industries, pay off all of their overhead and then reinvest the money into the company. That's how government works. It collects taxes, it uses the money to fund programs, and whatever is left over (HA!), pays down debt/gives back in rebates. That's how it works. 

Without taxes, there's no money to pay for programs, no money to pay government employees, no money to pay operating costs. There's no money to pay for anything. Paying taxes sucks something fierce. If I could, I wouldn't pay my taxes (more or less because I don't agree with how the money is being flushed down the toilet, not necessarily because I don't think it's necessary; another story for another day...maybe tomorrow). Taxes are essential. Taxes are what make government function. And whether you believe in big government or small government, whether you believe in no social programs or lots of social programs, no matter how you view the role of government in the every day lives of American people, nothing will function if government doesn't collect taxes. 

Americans have this indiscriminate opposition to paying taxes. I assume it comes from this whole idea during the American Revolution that we should not be taxed without having a say in how much and for what. It has instilled this extremely deep-seeded notion that it is un-American and unpatriotic for a government to collect taxes and for Americans to pay them. Any mention of raising taxes is political suicide in this country, which is ludicrous. Government can't function without taxes. The wealthy, (insert deity) love them, they are often times very hard-working, intelligent individuals or families who have earned everything they have in hopes of providing the best life they possibly can for their families and children. But it does not stir up my sympathies and emotions to hear them complain about being hit with a tax increase, especially on capital gains (to be discussed later). A progressive tax scale is not un-American. Collecting money from the more well-to-do to help feed and provide healthcare and the basic necessities of life to those most in need of assistance is not un-American. I seem to recall there being something on our symbol of freedom resting in the waters below Manhattan about America accepting the tired, poor and hungry of the world because we are a country not concerned with the condition of one's being but of the strength of their character and our proud ability to pick them up from whatever degree of destitution and make them prosperous. We have lost our way. We are failing. The last eight years have shown what not "redistributing the wealth," appropriately, which an awful, inaccurate term for taxation, does for everyone except the wealthiest of the wealthy. Salaries for just about everyone are either stagnant or falling. New jobs have not been created. The list goes on, and for the sake of not being redundant, I will not elaborate on the social and economic troubles facing America because of the neocon administration. 

To tackle some aforementioned things:  Calling taxation the "redistribution of wealth" is misleading and inaccurate. If we were to redistribute wealth, we would take money out of the paychecks of the golden-parachute protected CEOs and, using the number of Obama's campaign, everyone making $250,000 or more, and hand it over to those making less than $250,000 to spend at their discretion. That is not what taxation does. It's never been the purpose of taxation. And if it ever does become that way, I will be one of the first to challenge it in and every way possible. The government does not redistribute wealth. The government collects taxes to pay for operation costs and programs. Are their programs that exclusively benefit the less well-to-do. Absolutely. Some may call me a bleeding-heart liberal. I like to think of myself as simply an independent thinker. In either case, having the government help people out who are having trouble getting by really doesn't bother me. In fact, I think it's fantastic. We should do it more. When the illegal drug trade is as profitable as running a Fortune 1000 company, something is wrong. Intervention is needed. But again, another story for another day. The point is that as part of the social contract, as part of being a citizen of this country, as part of having the opportunity to live here and work here and make your lives and fortunes here, part of all of that is contributing your fair share to the money pot to make sure everything works. Would it be amazing if everyone made lots of money and could equally pay the government? Absolutely. But that's not the case. Different people earn different amounts of money and thus have to pay different amounts. Unfortunate, but that's the way it works. 

This proposal to raise capital gains tax is nowhere near as bad as it sounds. The people that earn capital gains are the people that own stock, options, etc. and that buy and sell real estate. Most, not all, but most of these people invest in real estate and stocks and taking on, to the average person, seemingly unnecessary risks because the money they invest is not money they need to live off of. If the money they invest disappears entirely, no one will be out of their homes or starving. The people earning capital gains typically can afford to pay a little more percentage-wise of their earnings. 

To get back to the point, Americans need to get over themselves in regards to paying taxes. No one likes it, but it is necessary. The time has come, especially at a time when we, as a nation, have eclipsed $10 trillion (that's $10,000,000,000,000+) in debt, for people to start being responsible and paying their fair share. Patriotism in this country stemmed from defiance and service to one's nation. Whether people like it or not, paying taxes is part of that service.